24fandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Images
Most of the issues the active members of this community have been sorting out recently tend to be project-specific or relatively small, detail-oriented matters. Being invested in these things might have blinded us from one of the more obvious issues: unlike most other top-level wikis, such as Memory Alpha, we don't have our screenshots and promo photos uploads tagged with the proper fair usage claim. Since we already have a sufficient template sitting around (all I want to do to change it is add the words "or promotional photograph" after the fifth word, "screenshot"), and we pretty much need to have those images tagged, would anyone have a problem if I got a bot / registered one to do this tedious task eventually? – Blue Rook 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)talk : I'll assume no one has a problem with documenting images like Wikipedia and Memory Alpha, so I'll take that the lack of "nays" as a vote of confidence to start doing this eventually. Or am I crazy? – Blue Rook 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)talk :: For legal issues in the best interest of the site, it's definitely a good idea to start a project to add those on. As for creating a bot in order to do that work, I don't really have an opinion either way, simply because I'm not all that familiar with working with them. --Deege515 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC) : I was wondering when someone would eventually get around to this. I've always been a little bothered with how messy our images are. There are lots of duplicates, unused ones, unlabeled ones, and untagged ones, etc. But it's such an overwhelming effort to rectify this that I've just never bothered to worry about it. Plus, I've always been more concerned with the text rather than the images. Heck, I would be satisfied if Wiki 24 was an entirely text site, but if someone's willing to undertake the work that needs to be done on images, I'm glad. : On a related issue that I've been meaning to bring up over the past few weeks, I'm wondering if we should adopt Memory Alpha's procedure of posting in-universe pics for actors. This reduces (or nearly eliminates) the number of images on Wiki 24 that don't belong to Fox. I have no idea what the copyrights are for the IMDb images we've been using, but if pretty much all of our images belong go Fox, it would make things a lot easier, especially if copyright issues ever did arise. --Proudhug 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC) :: The more recent actor pages I've created have involved using the same pics found on their respective actors' pages. Not to sound like a kiss-ass or anything *cough cough*, but the effort was more in the direction of laziness and not having to deal with actually finding something on the net for it. --Deege515 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Alrighty, I made my first of two rounds through the images: I am pretty sure I tagged between 1.5 and 2 thousand with the fair-use template. There is a good number left to go, so I'm set up to run through the remainder tomorrow after a short break :) I also wound up deleting something like 60 unused images (most of which were duplicates or blurry), but I saved and tagged a large number of still-unused images anway, in case anybody wants to rummage through later and give some of the better ones new life. For the record, I did not fair-use tag any of the following: The Game images, pictures of DVDs and boxes, comic book pics, photos of the 24 toys, photographs of posters, and of course, personal page images. I think I accidentally did tag one Game image, but the rest of them are really all TV screenshots and the staged promotional photos. – Blue Rook 07:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)talk : Holy friggin' crap! I nominate you for the User of the Year Award for this effort. Excellent work, my friend! From now one, we really need to monitor all new images that are uploaded. I've been lazy about this in the past. Also, I'd like to start cracking down on crappily named images. Ideally, I'd prefer we rename all files with non-useful names like 445.jpg or PDLE333d2.jpg, as well as those with the capitalized ".JPG" and such. If no one objects, I'm going to begin the practice of deleting all future images that have bad file names and make a note to the uploader to reload them with a clear and proper name. And hopefully, we can eventually get around to eliminating all of the bad file names. --Proudhug 18:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC) My pleasure, of course. The closer scrutiny of new file upload labels is the next logical extension of this project, so that idea sounds perfect to me. I just wish that we could rename them by using a Move Page function. Since we can't, what course can we take instead? – Blue Rook 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)talk : My limited wikiknowledge tells me the only way to do it is to manually re-upload each image and delete the old versions. Oh, and the other thing I think we should keep an eye are making sure images have descriptions stating who/what is in the photo, plus categorizing the images under our existing image categories. --Proudhug 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I follow everything you mentioned there, but take issue with one thing: manually downloading, renaming, and then re-uploading every image that has an unclear label is... unhinged! I agree that from now on, we should be 100% active in screening all the incoming images for their labels, but to retroactively go back to change the labels in that manner is nuts (unless an easier method comes along), especially given that the images do speak for themselves, regardless of what the label is. Sure, it is at times annoying to see silly or useless image labels, but I look at it this way: no wiki can ever be perfect, so just as everyone has little blemishes and old scars that have become part of them, so this wiki can keep a bit of the character it has developed over the years. What is much more important is to prevent new label issues. The correction of old ones would undoubtedly take far too much work over a much longer period of time to solve a problem that is ultimately a simple annoyance and has no true detrimental effect on the wiki itself. There are tons of other problems (organizational, grammatical, missing pages... the works) which should in my opinion always come first. Plugging in descriptions, of course, could solve this anyway for the old ones. Blue Rook 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)talk : Oh, I agree completely. I'm not necessarily proposing we get on this. I'm mainly concerned with the from now on part. But I may personally delete and re-upload certain images that irk me from time to time, if I'm feeling frisky. Ideally, we'd ultimately weed out all the "bad" images. But, like I said, I'm not too concerned about it. --Proudhug 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)